American society is culturally various with numerous spiritual denominations, sects, cults, and self-help teams vying for contributors. This quantity analyzes 9 of those teams, selected either for his or her intrinsic curiosity and since they illustrate various sociological recommendations. The teams integrated during this examine are: Heaven's Gate, Jesus humans united states, the affection relations, The Farm, Amish girls, Scientology, El Ni?±o Fidencio, Santer?­a, and Freedom Park. The members are social scientists with first-hand wisdom of the teams they research.

In a piece of notable breadth and readability, Paul Conkin deals an even-handed and in-depth examine the most important American-made different types of Christianity—a varied workforce of spiritual traditions, every one of which displays an important holiday from western Christian orthodoxy. picking out six detailed varieties, Conkin examines the foremost denominations consultant of every unique number of American Christianity: recovery (Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ); humanistic (Unitarians, Universalists); apocalyptic (Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses); Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints); non secular (Christian technology, Unity); and ecstatic (Holiness and Pentecostal denominations).

Extra info for Sects, Cults, and Spiritual Communities: A Sociological Analysis (Religion in the Age of Transformation)

Example text

The group still resides there. BELIEFS JPUSA’s members made a commitment to the original first-century Christian philosophy that ‘‘He who has two coats let him share with him who has none’’ (Luke 3:11), and ‘‘If a man comes to you and you send him away with empty blessings, you profit neither him nor yourself’’ (James 2:15–16). JPUSA members, as committed Christians, believe they are not simply to live as if they are poor. Rather, JPUSA members are to be poor, without excess wealth, pooling resources to survive and living in communitarian fashion.

Bromley and Busching 1988) have argued that covenantal communities have become anomalies in our densely populated, impersonal, urban societies. Alternatively, contractual communities emphasize limited, segmented relationships. People interact with others because those others are seen as means to specific ends. They do not care about others’ backgrounds, families, and experiences. Their relationships, based on limited obligations to one another, are clearly spelled out. This emphasis tends to minimize the importance and legitimacy of covenantal relationships.

One couple had chosen to use its allowance for a new pair of shoes, the other had not. Later, accusations of leadership favoritism were made. Similar examples abound in Enroth’s accusations of abuse. Hurt feelings and misperceptions are probably inevitable within groups whose first-generation members are exploring the dimensions of their lifestyle on a daily, experimental basis. ’’ The pain associated with departure from a religion sometimes parallels the pain associated with some divorces. It is important to bear in mind two points about how communitarian lifestyles are interpreted by persons familiar only with a predominantly contractual culture.